Wednesday, October 26

You know me -- I LOVE political movies and television. So I guess it was inevitable that I, in a fit of curiosity, would turn in to see "Commander In Chief" again. The announcement that ABC had hired Sandy (oops-I-inadvertently-hid-secret-National-Archives-documents-in-my-pants-and-lost-them-when-I-got-home) Berger as an advisor cast a ray of hope, so I tried again.

I suppose it's too early to see a change because last night's episode was worse than the first one. And I would have bet that wasn't possible!

So let's look at some of the more blatant errors of their ways: First: the Attorney General deals with an international incident that definitely should have been on the level of Secretary of Defense. She locks horns with the President on the issue of prisoner abuse and she uses semantics to put one over on the Pres. Any mother of a third grader would have recognized the semantic manipulation but it goes right over the head of the President.

Second: The President's teen-aged son gets involved in a schoolyard brawl without a secret service man in sight.

Third: The President spends a lot of time standing in a portico of the White House waving goodbye or in the residence dealing with childrens' problems.

Fourth: The use of deux ex machina: The Crisis-of-the-Day is quite conveniently wrapped up by the end of the episode. It was so predictable that it was downright sickening.

Fifth: Characters are black and white. The Attorney General disagrees with the President and manipulates her. The President fires the AG but not because she recognizes the manipulation but because the result was achieved by means she didn't like. A complicated issue (prisoner abuse) was addressed on one level only. That issue has many levels that need to be addressed.

Sixth: The Speaker of the House is the obvious week-to-week villain of the piece and is utterly transparent in his opposition. The President keeps giving him wide-eyed, uncomprehending looks.

Seventh: The dialogue is straight out of soap operaville. One thing that distinguishes the West Wing from all other television is the use of rapid-fire comebacks and double-sided discussions of issues. The dialogue style is straight out of old 1930s and 1940s movies and an absolute delight. It keeps watchers coming back to re-runs to pick up subtleties they might have missed in earlier viewings.

Eighth: White House staffers are obviously second- and third- string players. There's no particular respect paid to the President (the Chief of Staff never says "Thank you, Madam President," for example) and President MacKensie comes off like a cardboard figure playing a role. Which, of course, she is.

Ninth: No sense of reality to the show. It's entertainment and the viewer doesn't get involved like in the West Wing.

Tenth: The portrayal of the First Man is downright sickening. He doesn't tell his wife he has been offered the position of Baseball Commissioner. Why? Is he afraid she'll say no? What kind of man is that? What kind of woman is that?

Eleventh: There's no explanation of who is handling the First Lady's traditional jobs -- speeches, charities, entertaining, campaigning, appearances as representative of the US government, etc.

Twelfth: Funny the only time they mention a previous President or family, it's a Democrat. Republicans have been in that office more than twice the time since FDR's day.

Thirteenth: The set of the Oval Office and the hallways are straight out of the West Wing, including paintings on the wall. Couldn't ABC afford their own set?

Fourteenth: The characters aren't distinctive and defined. There's little interplay between them and no sense of respect for history like we get from the West Wing. One thing the West Wing does is portray the sense of awe and respect most Americans feel for the office of the President. You don't get that from CIC.

Face it, ABC. CIC is a BAD show -- the writers don't have the intellect, the researchers don't have the skill and the actors don't have the sensitivity to pull off a good, thought-provoking television program.

You may get TV "critics" pandering to Hillary and the network trying to convince the public the show is worth their time but it isn't. Even replacing Geena Davis with someone with more intellectual credibility like Allison Janney wouldn't fix it. Commander in Chief is a real loser.

It portrays everyone's nightmare of having a woman President: half-hearted interest and limited understanding in foreign affairs, emotional administration, even a family gone amuk because of confusion about parental roles. This show does more harm than good when it comes to promoting the idea of a woman President.

The professional "critics" may love it (but hey, look what else they love!) but I believe the American people have the intellect, the respect for the office and the concern for the country to see "Commander in Chief" for the fourth rate sham that it is.

Friday, October 21

Last March when Ann Coulter spoke at the University of Kansas, she was heckled and cursed by some of the students in the audience. So I wasn't surprised to see that Dr. David Horowitz had a security guard with him when he appeared at the University of Missouri in Kansas City this month. It's a sad commentary on our times to realize that the man standing quietly to the side, facing the audience, is there to protect the speaker's right to free speech. This is, after all, America.

But times have changed in America. David Horowitz, author, speaker, former- liberal-turned-conservative, is the head of a national organization that is working for students' rights in university classrooms.

His organization is "Students For Academic Freedom" and its purpose is "dedicated to restoring acdemic freedom and educational values to America's institutions of higher learning." Its goals are: "1. To promote intellectual diversity on campuses. 2. To defend the right of students to be treated with respect by faculty and administrators, regardless of their political or religious beliefs. 3. To promote fairness, civility and inclusion in student affairs. 4. To secure the adoption of the 'Academic Bill of Rights' as official university policy."

The problem Gary Sarrett describes in his blog titled "College Professors: Making Debate Obsolete One Student At A Time!" at GOP Insight is much too common for the good of healthy discourse in this country. Conservative students in colleges all over the country, from the Ivy League to State Universities to Community Colleges find that most of their professors are leftists in their political views (which is fine) and that those professors actively indoctrinate their students and punish those who dare to challenge their points of view (which is NOT fine) even in subjects that have nothing to do with the political arena.

Horowitz has been collecting stories from abused students for quite some time. Typical is the student who was, three weeks after the fall of Bagdad in May 2003, required to answer a "question" on her final exam that instructed students to "Explain why George Bush is a war criminal." The student explained instead why she thought Saddam Hussein was a war criminal. She received an "F."

In his booklet, "The Campaign For Academic Freedom," Dr. Horowitz gives specific examples of why this campaign is necessary. "When students go to their professors' offices," he writes, "they go for help. When professors plaster their doors with partisan cartoons that mock the deeply held beliefs of students of matters like abortion and party affiliation -- which they regularly do -- this creates a wall between faculty and students, which is injurious to the counseling process. How can a professor teach a student whom he regards as a partisan adversary? The answer is he cannot."

He also tells of his experience in trying to point out to colleges the errors of their ways and trying to get them to change. Dr. Horowitz has lectured and written on the subject for several years with what he describes as "little impact." He says, "The only result of my reviewing these facts has been to inspire an attack on my integrity by the American Association of University Professors." The opposition doesn't seem to care that the very principles espoused are the ones first published in 1915 in the famous report, "The Principles of Tenure and Academic Freedom" which were immediately embraced by institutions of higher education all over the US.

Enduring personal attacks in articles full of misrepresentation and downright lies published against him, Horowitz realized that he was up against the proverbial brick wall. College administrators were happy with the status quo and there was nothing he could do to change them. Except hit them where it hurts -- in the purse.

So Dr. Horowitz drafted legislation to protect students' rights and has been going to state legislatures to gain their support. The legislatures of each state -- as elected representatives of the people whose taxes support and finance the educational institutions -- have a fiduciary responsibility to their constituents to remedy the situation.

Interestingly, the University of Colorado (home of "progressive" liberal Ward Churchill) became one of Dr. Horowitz's first successes. (Ohio is another.) After a series of hearings and discussions, university administrators realized that intellectual diversity no longer existed on their campus. In collaboration with the Colorado House, the Presidents of the University of Colorado and other Colorado universities signed a Memorandum of Understanding in which they pledged to provide protections to students of all political viewpoints.

Shortly after this, the Colorado legislature overwhelmingly adopted Senate Joint Resolution 04-033, which commended the presidents for their willingness to provide those needed protections and requesting regular reports on their progress.

Dr. Horowitz is dedicating his time, fortune and effort to promoting academic freedom for all. His national organization, Students For Academic Freedom can use all the help it can get. For more information contact Sara Dogan at sara@studentsforacademicfreedom.org or telephone 202-393-0123. Visit the web site at www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org.

Wednesday, October 19

Today's Washington Times blog has an article titled "Miers spat is a family affair" in which managing editor Fran Coombs writes, "Enter Harriet Miers, undoubtedly a fine and talented individual but singularly ill-prepared to serve on America’s most powerful court. This is cronyism run amok. Even Mr. Bush’s most ardent supporters find themselves making torturous defenses of a nomination that cannot be defended." This is an example of Washington elitism par excellance. Keep the status quo: don't let an outsider in. The strongest case against Ms. Miers is that she has never served as a judge and therefore has not handed down opinions to critique.

There is not now -- nor has there ever been -- a rule that says only serving judges may be nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. In that past that has served us well since some of our finest justices had no judicial experience when they were elected. Justice John Marshall was one. A new justice with little experience on the bench brings fresh thoughts and ideas to a moldy, staid and somewhat jaded set of minds.

Coombs continues, "You know the White House is in trouble when it is reduced to smearing Ms. Miers’ conservative opponents as “elitists” and “sexists.” This is the kind of rhetoric one expects from Hillary “vast right-wing media conspiracy” Clinton and other leftists for whom the only political defense is a below-the-belt punch. But for a White House that at least ostensibly labels itself conservative to fling the empty canards of the Left at fellow conservatives is downright insulting." It's a rather left-handed compliment to the White House that the editor finds that discourse insulting. It's true that the "right" has let the "left" use that kind of language in the past but perhaps it's time to call a spade a spade. Refusing to consider someone other than a judge IS elitist. I don't agree with the sexist charge but will chalk that one up to justifiable anger.

Coombs again: "Mr. President, woo the disaffected on the Right as if they were members of your own family. “Yes, I understand your concerns, but trust me, bear with me on this,” you should say." All he should do is what he has been doing. He shouldn't have to "woo" anyone. "Wooing" in this case would be the same as explaning or apologizing and he should not have to do that. He is right to assume his supporters will trust his judgement.

Yes, I admit I trust the President. I have not always agreed with his decisions but I have always been able to see why he made them and (most important) I recognize that he is doing what he believes is right for the country. Right in the sense of best, for I don't believe conservatives are the best for the country all the time. And I don't believe liberals are EVER the best for the country! But I trust President Bush and would not have voted to put him where he is if I were not prepared to do so.

Congress should place Meirs on the court BECAUSE she has no judicial experience. Congressional members should NEVER assume that what someone thought or believed, wrote or said 20 or 30 years ago is an indication of what they believe, would write, say or do now.

If someone is that fixed in attitude and closed in mind, they should not serve in any public capacity. What government servants (in Congress, on the Court or in the Executive Branch) need are open minds, patriotic hearts, elephantine skins and a "do unto others as I want done unto me" morality.

Give the Supreme Court a fresh, unfettered mind, eager and willing to learn. A touch of the early Patriot, if you will. What Congress should be ascertaining is Miers' patriotism and if she is dedicated to upholding the Constitution. After all, that's all we can ask of her -- or anyone.

Tuesday, October 18

Since the earliest days of this country, Americans have been generous to orphaned children, the poor and the elderly. When the nation was mostly agricultural -- that is, up to the 1870s -- communities took care of their poor. Local villages and towns developed poor relief systems and even workhouses. Poor Mothers' Pensions were developed prior to WWI to help indigent mothers care for their children rather than put them in foster homes or institutions.

By the mid-twenties some states were experimenting with old-age assistance and aid to the blind. Then the politicos began to develop the idea that a social insurance system would be appropriate for a more-and-more industrialized society. They decided that contributory financing of social insurance would make that security a matter of rights as opposed to a public assistance approach where only those in need would receive help.

This insurance first began with workers' compensation. In 1908 the Federal Government adopted a law covering Federal employees in hazardous jobs and the first State compensation law to be held Constitutional was adopted in 1911. By 1928, workers' comp laws were in effect in all but four states. These laws paid only on death or severe injury of the insuree. Families took care of the elderly or they took care of themselves unless they were police officers, teachers or firemen. New Jersey's teachers' pension plan, the oldest in the nation for government employees, was established in 1896. By the early 1900s several local governments had set up retirement plans for police officers and fire fighters. In 1920 the Civil Service Retirement System was set up for Federal employees.

Veterans' Benefits were also established early. These initially consisted of widows' pensions, compensation for war disabled and land grants. After WWI, a full-scale hospital system was developed, including medical care benefits. And the fist-sized snowball was picking up steam as it began the downhill roll.

The Great Depression of the 1930s gave the greatest impetus to Federal welfare action. Neither the states nor local communities had the resources to cope with the growing problem. In 1932, the Federal Government made loans, then grants, to states to pay for relief, both direct and work related. FDR proposed the Social Security Act of 1935 and Congress passed it.

This law established two social insurance programs on a national scale to help the elderly and the unemployed. It set up benefits for retired workers who had been employed in industry and commerce along with a Federal state system of insurance -- Grants-in-Aid to the states for programs of Old Age Assistance and Aid to the Blind for those who were not eligible for social security.

In 1939 the additions began: Aid to Dependent Children, Tax on Employers of Eight or More, Public Health Aid, Unemployment Insurance, Railroad Retirement System and more.And the snowball had just begun to grow.

It grew again in the 1940s and 1950s with weekly cash benefits to the temporarily disabled and more complicated health benefits for Federal workers. Veterans' benefits were expanded and increased

By 1964 the Federal Food Stamp Program was added along with other nutrition programs including school breakfasts and lunches. In 1996 the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Medicaid was created in 1965. Public assistance provisions expanded in 1972. In 1983 coverage became compulsory and the age of eligibility for benefits was increased from 65 to 67.

Originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable as income. All funds collected for Social Security went into the Social Security Trust Fund and were used exclusively for benefits. Excesses above those required for immediate benefits were (and are) invested in US Treasury bonds. These funds may be used by the government in any way Congress sees fit.

No matter who's to blame for the mess social security is in there are two facts about it that are downright felonous:

First, today up to 85% of Social Security benefits are taxed. If benefits were simply reduced the funds collected from Social Security payroll taxes and not paid out because of the reduction in payments would REMAIN IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND. But by making the benefits taxable, $21 billion a year that is collected for the Social Security Trust fund is paid out to beneficiaries and is then collected back in the form of Income taxes. These funds are deposited in the General fund of the United States. Each year then $21 billion dollars of Social Security Payroll taxes are siphoned out of the Social Security Trust fund and placed in the general fund to be used for other than what the tax was originally intended.

And Second: In the words of President Bush, "The trust fund is just an empty IOU, just a piece of paper. You pay your payroll tax; we pay for the people who have retired, and if there's any money left over, we spend it on government. That's how it works."

So the $1.5 Trillion social security "trust fund" is really nothing but worthless, non-marketable IOU pieces of paper.

Actually that's all it is supposed to be. My parents' generation paid for their parents' retirement, we paid for our parents' and expected our children to pay for ours, their children to pay for theirs. But the catch lies in the last sentence of the President's statement: "if there's any money left over, we spend it on government." THAT is the crux of the problem.

It's not the social security system that is in trouble; it's the way Congress handles it. Congress should be held accountable by the people, even if it means they all go to jail.

Monday, October 17

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would be used ONLY to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on

85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to

immigrants?

A: Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after all this, the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

Thursday, October 13

Wednesday, October 12

We have to stop the hatred in political discourse in the United States.

Democrats are always saying they hate Republicans. They've even published books about it. Like "The I Hate Republicans Reader: Why the GOP is Totally Wrong About Everything." Now the GOP may be wrong about everything but that's no reason for hatred. That's a reason for two-way discussion. Passionate, sure. Hatred, no.

Then there's "888 Reasons to Hate Republicans: An A to Z Guide to Everything Loathsome About the Party of the Arrogant Rich."

Then there's the song, "I hate Republicans" which is featured on a web site that is a video that ignores the truth about the good things we do like the Ownership Society that made it possible for our son, who is severely retarded and has an income of less than $15,000.00 a year to buy his own home.

I'm a Republican but I'm not rich. I know people who are and the ones I know are faultlessly generous in their giving -- of time as well as money -- to those less fortunate than they.

But I digress. Howard Dean, one of the best the Democratic Party has to offer said, "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization." The most quoted part of that statement is the first part.

They even have t-shirts. Do a google hit on "hate Republicans" and you'll get 6,800,000 hits. Six MILLION, eight hundred thousand.

But the Republicans aren't blameless in all this. Google "hate Democrats" and you get 7,840,000 hits. The problem with that number, however, is that it is contaminated by Democrats saying that Republicans hate them. Not Republicans saying they do -- just Democrats. Guilt, I suppose.

The first hit is "Why Americans Hate Democrats -- A Dialogue, The unteachable ignorance of the red states." by Jane Smiley. Her entire article could have been written without hatred, but it wasn't. And it was a liberal's hatred of republicans that is expressed.

Actually, those hits mostly discuss how Democrats hate Republicans. As in this piece by John David Powell, titled "Politics And Hate: The Democrats’ Not-So-Subtle Message" in which he writes, "Those who pull the political strings within the Democratic Party put out the word in the days leading up to their national convention that Bush bashing, divisive rhetoric, and other forms of hate-filled language were not welcomed. The memo read something like: 'Anyone caught violating the tenets of our newly found political compassion toward those we hate will be thrashed wickedly like a colorfully headed child from another marriage (because 'beating you like a rented mule' doesn't sound good given that our party's symbol is a donkey).

"There is wisdom to this kinder, gentler form of politics, but it may be too foreign and too late for a large segment of Democrats who cannot utter the words Bush or Republican without adding the word hate somewhere. While Democratic delegates engaged in their orchestrated love fest on the convention floor, the scene outside was somewhat more hate filled, probably because the memo wasn't passed around among the general population."

Still, there is some expression of hatred toward Democrats. I dropped off a Republican e-mail list because of it. I will not be a part of hatred if I can possibly avoid it, whether it's from a Republican or a Democrat.

Because hatred always has repercussions. Hatred is what assassinated President Kennedy and hatred is behind a threat on President Bush's life that is posted in the comments on this web site. Hatred is what caused 9/11 and is causing genocide in Africa and murder in the Holy Land.

It is all right to disagree and it's fine to disagree with passion -- but not with hatred.

Monday, October 10

Attended law school for a while but didn't graduate. Passed the bar exam and set up a successful law practice practicing consumer law -- defending clients against creditors.

Served in a state legislature, but refused to serve as attorney general and also refused a position on the Supreme Court and a nomination to be Secretary of War.

Ran for House of Representatives and won but served a very short time.

Can you imagine Congress approving this nomination for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? I doubt it. The media would complain about "inexperience." Congress would poke and probe into motivations and declarations made years ago. But his name was John Marshall and his impact on American constitutional law is peerless. He served for more than 34 years and participated in more than 1000 decisions. He authored over 500 opinions.

Today he is recognized as the single most important figure on constitutional law. Marshall's legacy resounds through the great issues of contemporary America.

Some of the best justices who have served on the Supreme Court were not judges before their appointments. Justice Renquist was one, and there were at least 10 others.

Other Presidents have been allowed to select justices and most have been approved without the kind of childish wrangling we've seen the past few years. It's all political grandstanding for the gullible media. And the nation is denied some exceptional legal minds (and public servants) because of it.

I am no fan of television (with the possible exceptions of HGTV, the History Channel, CSpan, and sometimes the Discovery Channel) but I have to admit a fascination with and possibly a compulsion to watch "The West Wing." I discovered the show when I was flat on my back recovering from surgery and became addicted. That's the right word, too -- addicted.

Never mind that the show promotes a Democratic agenda. Of course I relish their mistakes: having Air Force One leave Nashville after the President visits Oak Ridge, for example. Poor research there, as was President Bartlett's speech in defense of homosexuals which relied solely on Old Testament references. And there have been others but, interestingly, not nearly as many in the three years or so of episodes that I've watched as there were in the first episode of the new TV series "Commander In Chief."

One advantage "The West Wing" has over the upstart is that they used former White House staffers like Dee Dee Myers as consultants. That makes a HUGE difference.

It's been claimed that "Commander In Chief's" premise that a woman can be President reveals a rising American controversy. What's controversial about that? After all, we've already had a woman as candidate for Vice President. (Remember Geraldine Ferraro?) And in fiction, last year "The West Wing" gave a woman the position of Chief of Staff -- a position much more powerful than the average American voter realizes.

"Commander In Chief" is, however, a thinly veiled (she was mentioned by name more than five times in the first episode) apologist for Hillary Clinton's candidacy in 2008. And if the first episode was any indication, it's not going to do her any good.

For example, the show is rife with feminist concepts, speeches and issues. As soon as she takes the oath of office, President Mackenzie Allen (Geena Davis) initiates military action in Nigeria to rescue a woman sentenced to death by stoning for adultery. She does not refer to the UN, nor does she confer with advisors or her Cabinet. She comes on like a dictator, inflicting her will mindlessly, heedlessly and without any thoughtful consideration of repercussions or results. This does, indeed, sound a lot like Hillary Clinton!

Something like this pales in the face of real crises facing the USA. Although it's based on reality -- there have been cases where Nigerian women were sentenced to death by stoning for adultery. So far all have been overturned on appeal and no executions for adultery have actually been carried out. It doesn't take an expert in foreign policy to imagine the political fallout from such a unilateral action by a US President!

The cast is mediocre. I suppose Geena Davis can't help looking like someone just socked her in the mouth but you can't help but shudder at the thought of such mediocre TV actors running the country! The writing is especially poor and the premise that a woman President is unusual is silly. Also, the title of the fourth episode seems like a barometer of the shallowness of the show: "Walk Softly and Carry A Lipstick." There is no depth in this show and no passion. Another thing that is lacking is that sense of awe and respect for the American system that's in the West Wing. The fast, intelligent repartee is missing, too.

Women now run corporations, serve in Congress, serve in the military and more. The only problem with fielding a woman for President is that there are so few qualified women out there.

In "Commander In Chief" we can get an idea of what it would mean to America if we let modern feminists loose in the White House. An unmitigated disaster.

Saturday, October 1

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show by Jane Clayson who asked, (regarding the attacks on Sept. 11), "How could God let something like this happen?""

Anne Graham said, "I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.

And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?"

It started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.

Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. It has a great deal to do with "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW."

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.

Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages about prayer, Jesus or God, people think twice about sharing. They don't want to "offend."

Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

"Because the whole truth -- that the girl was part of a group of naive teenagers recruited by Communist activists to wear terrorist-style bandannas and carry Palestinian flags and obscene placards -- is disturbing, and doesn't conform to the narrative that the Chronicle is trying to promote. By presenting the photo out of context, and only showing the one image that suits its purpose, the Chronicle is intentionally manipulating the reader's impression of the rally, and the rally's intent.

Such tactics -- in the no-man's-land between ethical and unethical -- are commonplace in the media, and have been for decades. It is only now, with the advent of citizen journalism, that we can at last begin to see the whole story and realize that the public has been manipulated like this all along."

History will most likely say that bloggers saved the United States of America -- if, indeed, it can be saved. It may already be too late. . .